A blog about progressive politics, media politics, random cultural ephemera, etc. by Hannah Miller, a progressive writer/activist/mediaista from Philadelphia.
The Bills are Too High: Community education and support on rising costs of gas, electric, cable and internet - our basic utility needs. Monday, February 15th from 6pm - 8pm Tuttleman Learning Center room 105 at the intersection of 13th and Montgomery Philadelphia, PA www.mediamobilizingproject.org
The Bills are Too High is a community educational event and support on the increases in the costs of basic utilities that are affecting our city and state. In a city where unemployment has climbed over 10% and nearly one and four live in poverty, paying the bills is a struggle for many of us. From electricity, to cable, gas, and internet, federal and state actions are making it harder every day for Philadelphians to meet our basic needs.
The beginning of this year marked increases as high as 40% in the electric bills throughout Central PA. Jan 2011 will see more increases for all those in the Philadelphia area served by PECO/ Excelon because of deregulation.
With Internet and Cable major companies like Verizon and AT&T are pushing federal law makers to allow discrimination of content on the internet, a move that would make the internet more expensive for everyone.
Along with this Comcast is looking to buy NBC/Universal. From past experiences of deals like this such a move means less channels for viewers and higher monthly bills.
And many people going through the winter without heat were almost kept in the cold because of a lack of funds for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). More funds were distributed but the program is under extra stress because of the economic down-turn.
Through out the evening there will be support to sign up for LIHEAP and other utility benefits, take action to make cable and internet affordable, and a listening booth to share your own story.
The Bills are Too High will take place at Temple University Main Campus, Tuttleman Learning Center room 105 at the intersection of 13th and Montgomery, on Monday, February 15th from 6pm - 8pm.
Rip! a Remix Manifesto is a great documentary for anyone who has ever downloaded anything for free and kind of wondered whether they should be worried about copyright - and even more so for mashup artists, which I didn't even know I was, but I am myself! I saw it at Argus Fest in Denver, a series of cool documentaries shown in cafes there.
Here is a great section. (can get the whole thing here):
This is one of the artists in the clip above, Negativland, who happened to make a piece on Pay TV Versus Free TV (this one's for my media justice buddies):
And if you've already watched the clip from Rip! from above, here is the Open Source Cinema animated clip:
Across the spectrum of those who work for progressive issues and candidates (climate change, civil rights, Hoeffel for Governor, etc), there is a special little corner of those of us who work on what I call ‘infrastructure issues.’
What we do affects the outcome, in some small way, of the rest of the fights. What we do is to try to change the framework of rules that govern the flow of money and influence and power (and, in my case, the flow of information) that, in turn, decide which voices get heard in all the other debates.
It sounds like it would be understood as important, but unfortunately, to care about infrastructure reform, or to understand why it is necessary, requires a deep understanding of how the American political system works and a desire to work on obscure issues, both of which do not often simultaneously occur. The types of reforms I am talking about span from voter enfranchisement, to media democratization, to campaign finance reform, to public finance of campaigns, and reform of the redistricting process itself.
We toil somewhat in obscurity, and these issues are generally some of the hardest to organize on, because they require fairly extensive political education. Most folks already have their issues, and at best, what we do is seen as secondary. I had been meaning to write about this for a while, but my hand was forced by the very grievous injustice perpetrated upon the American people this week by the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United. The American people – and all those who live here, citizens or not – deserve so much better than they got this week.
I work on the same floor of a Dupont Circle office building as the headquarters of Common Cause. They are my friends. Bob Edgar brings in coffee cakes for the staff. On our floor, Common Cause is known for their amazing holiday decorations.
Campaign finance reform was one of the first political causes I ever cared about, before I had even ever worked in politics or covered elections. The Media and Democracy Coalition, for whom I work, comes out of the same lineage, and I remember, after about 7 months of organizing on media reform, how amazed I was that Common Cause had managed to build state chapters – state chapters for an infrastructure campaign! It seems almost quaint, imagining a time when Americans still felt that they had enough control over their own government to go to a Common Cause chapter meeting about how to change it. It’s one thing to do that in Philadelphia, it’s another thing entirely when it comes to Congress. There’s a poster on the wall in the Common Cause offices: EVERYONE IS ORGANIZED BUT THE PEOPLE – John Gardner.
I’m an organizer, and the apathy on the part of the American populace is so overwhelming at times.
It’s become so obvious for me during the last two jobs I’ve had. In one of the jobs I had in 2008 (it was healthcare reform), everyone believed that the healthcare system sucked, but felt powerless to do anything.
Now, in my current job, everyone (and I mean EVERYONE) HATES the media, hates almost everything about it, without any limit: the crappy radio, the lack of good information on television, the sensationalism, the reality shows, the high cable or dish TV rates, the portrayals of women, the portrayals of African Americans, the portrayals of any other racial minority, of seniors, of immigrants, of teenagers, of pretty much everybody except white male serial killers or plastic surgeons wearing sexily weathered J. Crew t-shirts, the fact their local newspaper doesn’t actually tell them what’s in the healthcare bill, the fact that games from their publicly-funded sports team sucking the tax dollars out of their nearly-bankrupt city are only available to paying cable customers, they pretty much hate EVERYTHING ABOUT THE MEDIA as it is now, with the exception of the Internet, which is facing an onslaught of pressure by people who are hellbent on ruining it like the rest of the media. And even with all that, all those grievances, they still don't believe they can change anything.
That’s how people feel about the campaign I work for now. They all already agree with how messed up everything is. It’s exactly how the American public feels about money in politics. It is universally understood, the need for campaign finance reform.
So where does the transfer stop? How is there universal agreement on what’s wrong, and so little hope that one can change it? How do we go from ‘core American value’ – the easiest thing on which to motivate a group….to waking up one morning to Citizens United?
On CSPAN radio the day that CU went down, I heard a commentator say, “this decision really highlights the loss of Sandra Day O’Connor from the bench, with her legislative experience.”
Yeah.
I haven’t read the decision, but the implication of this comment was that the rest of the Supreme Court did not think that corporate campaign contributions have an undue influence on Congress.
Yeah.
I do not know how you get to be a Supreme Court Justice without understanding such a thing, but there seems to be a failure in our educational system on that point. My friend on Facebook wrote today, “it’s okay, it can be overturned, remember, Plessy vs. Ferguson was overturned by Brown vs. Board of Education.”
There is that much sorrow. It is a death, especially when you think about the minor voodoo miracle it took to pass McCain Feingold in the first place.
There was a part in Michael Moore’s Capitalism that was hard to forget. It was the part about the Citigroup memo, leaked to a reporter in 2005, that outlined CitiGroup’s political sociology about globalization. I’ve linked to it here, but I just want to highlight the point Moore made in the movie: that CitiGroup analysts truly felt that the top 1 percent of earners in America were running the country again, and that there was only one last bothersome thing getting in the way: the fact that the American Constitution still guaranteed “one person, one vote.”
We are at a time of such great flux that it is hard to see the future. In a way, there might be something very real, and very good, coming out of this (and I don’t just mean it the way my dear friends mean it: as in, you have to smack your head against the concrete to wake up and fight again, etc etc.)
In a world where the media has so fragmented and exploded, in a way that devalues the word and overwhelms the Story itself, and where political advertising becomes more openly corporate (depending on transparency law), it’s possible that we might actually have to, out of necessity, return to the good old-fashioned form of political communication – talking to our neighbors and friends. Which is what people like me - who like talking - have been hoping for all along.
It has occurred to me that political communication online now, especially on friendship-networks Facebook – where you get your ideas and news from your friends – is not really all that different from community-based organizing, or even ye olde Philadelphia ward system. The apathy and trust levels have sunk so low that this is really the last space where political communication is taken at face value. To have all of this devalued might not be a tremendously bad thing at all. We'll see. I would really appreciate any thoughts you have.
I travelled a lot in December, and have been greatly changed by it. I went to the Philly burbs for my brother's wedding, went to Amsterdam with a dear friend, came back to DC, then drove to Mississippi where we moved my grandfather into an old folks' home called Wellington Place...then drove to Tennessee to see my mother and sister...then went to Atlanta just to mess around.
Here are some of the beautiful things I would like to post here:
Painting: "Great Bridge, Sudden Storm at Atake" by Ando Hiroshige. There is a replica in the Van Gogh Museum in Amsterdam because he liked it so much he painted his own version. I love this painting. If you could see detail, the little people on the bridge are rendered very expressively; they are kind of freaking out in their wet kimonos and running. It's very humorous and cute and it reminds us that, in the end, we are just little clueless fumbling human beings in a much larger universe.
BOOK: This is one of the most beautiful books I have ever read.
It's about Paradise. I did not think that Aldous Huxley was as good as creating Paradise as he was at creating Hell. But I should have known.
I bought it at the Friday bookmarket in Amsterdam. They have a book market every Friday in the same place! It's what people do on Friday nights.
While in Atlanta I went to the Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Center for Nonviolent Social Change; there was much I did not know or understand until this trip, and it was fortunate I was there. I particularly want to read his last book, written in 1967. It also struck me how different it was for him and the SCLC organizing in Southern vs. Northern cities. (see below, a clip of King on nonresistance vs. nonviolent resistance.)
Listened to Indian music... a mix...
Listened to a lot of Miriam Makeba:
Two versions of "Wade in the Water" by Eva Cassidy:
On Friday, the Media and Democracy Coalition stood with SEIU, the Teamsters, the United Food and Commercial Workers, Healthcare for America Now, small business owners, Greenpeace, PennEnvironment, AFSCME, MoveOn, Change to Win, the Sierra Club, and many other groups in denouncing the regressive policies of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce at its meeting in Philadelphia.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has been fighting healthcare reform, climate change legislation, and President Obama's attempt to guarantee freedom of speech and freedom of expression online. I spoke to warn my fellow organizers - and all those concerned about freedom of speech - about the growing threat from the giant corporations that control the Internet, and the need to make net neutrality the law. My remarks are below; please go to SavetheInternet.com for more information.
This is almost impossible to believe - but it's actually true.
About a month ago, the Obama administration announced its intent to write policy that would protect, by law, the freedom that has allowed the Internet to grow and flourish.
It's no joke that such protection is needed. Repression of the Internet by the corporations that control it has already started.
Last month, Apple told a healthcare reform group that they wouldn't carry a healthcare reform app on their AT&T network for 30 million iPhones because it was "politically charged"...
As with most other good things that the Obama administration is trying to do, this has been lost in a flood of lobbyists, all arguing that having unchecked corporate power over the most vital part of our economy, political life, social networks, communication tools, reference libraries, and grassroots organizing would be really great for America. (I have cross posted a great piece by Jason Rosenbaum below explaining this in more detail).
Among them were members from the great state of Pennsylvania, where American democracy was invented and the Bill of Rights was written - ensuring freedom of speech, freedom to assemble - all of the democratic powers that the Internet magnifies for millions more.
Here's who came out against the future of the Internet last week:
Rep. Kathy Dahlkemper Rep. Chris Carney Rep. Allyson Schwartz Rep. Chaka Fattah Rep. Tim Holden ....AND Representative Bob Brady - in whose district sits the National Constitution Center, the Liberty Bell, Ben Franklin's first printing press, and pretty much all of the intellectual and moral heritage we are so very quickly as a nation flushing down the toilet.
The rules being written now will shape the future direction of the Internet over the next 20 years. It either can remain a village: fun, chaotic, free, humble, an experimental and educational space ... or turn into something that looks much more like a suburban strip mall: soulless, commercial, and cold.
I believe that Congress wants to protect the Internet. But they have a lot of pressure on them right now.
A very odd letter from Democrats and telecom lobbyists on net neutrality By: Jason Rosenbaum Saturday October 17, 2009 1:00 pm On Thursday, 72 Democrats sent a letter to the Chairman of the FCC, Julius Genachowski. The letter concerns net neutrality, which, according to the Chairman, is set to be enshrined as the FCC’s official policy.
The letter is very odd, especially if you’re not well versed in telecom lobbyist lingo. It lays out “concerns” relating to net neutrality that really don’t make much sense.
The heart of the letter reads:
As the FCC embarks on its much anticipated rulemaking addressing the subject of “net neutrality,” we therefore urge the Commissioner to carefully consider the full range of potential consequences that government action may have on network investment. We are confident that an objective review of the facts will reveal the critical role that competition and private investment have played — and of necessity will continue to play — in building robust broadband networks that are safe, secure and open. In light of the growth and innovation in new applications that the current regime has enabled, as compared to the limited evidence demonstrating any tangible harm, we would urge you to avoid tentative conclusions which favor government regulation.
Clearly, these Members of Congress are urging the Commissioner not to adopt net neutrality standards. But the argument they’re making is very curious. They point to the innovation that drove the creation and adoption of the Internet and broadband technologies as a reason to keep government regulation out of the picture.
On the surface, this might be convincing. After all, the Internet has grown up just fine without these regulations, why would we need them now. That is, until you realize that net neutrality is already the de-facto law of the land.
Right now, we have net neutrality in deed if not word. The FCC has enforced the provision, too, as Chairman Genachowski explained:
We’ve already seen some clear examples of deviations from the Internet’s historic openness. We have witnessed certain broadband providers unilaterally block access to VoIP applications and implement technical measures that degrade the performance of peer-to-peer software distributing lawful content. We have even seen one service provider deny users access to political content.
And as many members of the Internet community and key Congressional leaders have noted, there are compelling reasons for concern about even greater challenges to openness in the future, including reduced choice in the Internet service provider marketplace and an increase in the amount of Internet traffic, which has fueled a corresponding need to manage networks sensibly.
The rise of serious challenges to the traditional operation of the Internet puts us at a crossroads. We could see technology used to shut doors to entrepreneurs instead of opening them. The spirit of innovation stifled. A full and free flow of information compromised.
Or we could take steps to preserve a free and open Internet, helping to ensure a future of opportunity, prosperity, and the vibrant flow of information and ideas.
I believe we must choose to safeguard the openness that has made the Internet a stunning success. That is why today, I delivered a speech announcing that the FCC will be the smart cop on the beat when it comes to preserving a free and open Internet.
In other words, the Internet grew up to be the amazing tool it is today precisely because net neutrality reigned. Recently, telecom companies have started to change that.
In this light, the 72 Democrats who signed this letter don’t have much of an argument. They correctly note that the Internet has grown up well in the open platform it was given, a platform that includes net neutrality. And then they proceed to argue against making these rules formal. It makes no sense…
…until you consider the lobbyists.
As Free Press notes:
The big phone and cable companies have launched an all-out assault on Capitol Hill to try to stop Net Neutrality. They’ve hired hundreds of lobbyists, spent tens of millions of dollars, and unleashed sleazy Astroturf groups to mislead politicians, distort the facts, and resurrect long-debunked myths.
The bad news is that these dirty and deceitful tactics appear to be working on a few people who should know better.
This afternoon, several dozen Democrats sent a letter to the Federal Communications Commission asking them to walk away from their plans to protect Net Neutrality.
Their letter parrots telco talking points — which had to come from somewhere, and it certainly wasn’t from the more than 1.6 million people who have signed a petition in support of Net Neutrality.
This is a campaign by telecom lobbyists to block net neutrality from being preserved, using a false talking point about increased regulation. And yes, these Democrats really should know better, especially people like Jared Polis, who’s trying to have it both ways by defending this letter and saying he supports net neutrality.
It is because of net neutrality that we have blogs like this one. It’s because of net neutrality that we have Google, YouTube, Facebook, and all the other sites we take for granted every day. And there’s nothing wrong with the FCC making net neutrality a formal rule so this innovation can continue into the future.
Sign the petition supporting net neutrality and watch out for that telecom spin.
Posts
